Alright I see this so many times; and let me see if I have this right. Canadians (some) are bragging about burning a building of country that wasn't even half of what it is today, In a war that was between the U.S. and GB. Two things here:

1. If GB (or Canada since they want to take "glory') won then why did they take the U.S. back under their control? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding something)
2. Do any of you Canadians or Brits honestly think you could stand a chance against the full might of the U.S. Military today?

Burning a building doesn't destroy a country. So stop pretending to be so hardcore for fighting (and still losing to in the end) what was essentially the east coast of a developing country just because you set a some things on fire..but hey if that's all you have to hang your hats on...then maybe we as Americans should let you guys brag about it...

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Cubs (MLB team for those who may not be familiar)...their fans always brag about how great a team they are, but they haven't won a championship since 1908. Not saying Brititan hasn't won a war since, but we all know when it comes to America you can't win if you could there wouldn't be an America to begin with (see Revolutionary War). I don't care about specifics at this point, I'm sure I'm missing spots here and there, but we all know the U.S. has the best military around. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

I think GB has not won a war since WWII(with everyone else(even if US takes the credit)), because, they are peacefull, they defend do not attack, US only makes war with undeveloped countries, it is almoust like a bully, and today I am pretty sure, nobody could win against US army, too many forces and money on it.

I'm sure GB has won more often than it's lost in a majority of it conflicts even the ones with out the US. Also, it's not like we start things with these "undeveloped countries" there's always someone doing something that causes the U.N. to call on the U.N. leaders. Besides there aren't to many things we get into that some part of, if not all of, the EU is involved in.

Jesus, are you listening to yourself? "The full might of the U.S. military"? Stop pretending military might is anything even remotely worth merit, admiration or even respect anymore. It's ******* primitive.

I'm saying that it's a backward thing to be proud of or to speak of in such a context, i.e. "Do any of you Canadians or Brits honestly think you could stand a chance against the full might of the U.S. military today?"

Military power means something in that it gives control over one's population, weaker allies and enemy nations. Thing is, that may have been considered prestigious in the 16th century, but these days it's more a frustrating factor that many feel is in the way of the world actually getting anywhere that isn't clogged up with rivalry, power-play and ego-tripping. Consider that some countries haven't been at war for about 200 years. That's pretty much the longest stretch of peace for any people in human history; war and military might is something that should be of the past, or at least the value some people put in it.

I posed it in such away given the topic at hand. As long as people have different oppinions wether it be religious, political, etc...there will always be conflict. I agree that we should all find a way to be at peace, but I don't believe that it can be done.

Not like a pretty big part of the world make up the U.N. or anything.
I'll let you in on a secret: even if we were able to use nukes, which I hope we would never resort to, it's been proven that we couldn't even wipe all of China off the map.

With miitary forces combined such as China, Britain, France, Russia, Mexico, Germany, and... you know... a **** ton of other military forces out there, not only are we outnumbered, their combined wealth would **** us over as well.

" I don't care about specifics at this point, I'm sure I'm missing spots here and there, but we all know the U.S. has the best military around. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

Red thumb me all you want if it makes you feel better"

I agree with some of your points but I hate arrogant doucebags like yourself who think everyone who thumbs you down "can't deal with it" or some ******** like that. Does it make you feel better to pretend everyone who disagrees with you is just butthurt and wrong?

Not being an arrogant douchebag. I was simply reffering to the people who just want to look at that certain aspect (buring the capital building) and nothing else. I don't care if people disagree with me or even debate me. As long as they can do so intellegently. If someone does then I'll gladly jump into specifics and what not.

We don't have to withstand the full might of the USA
1 - The USA can't use chemicals weapons or nukes on any major population centers, considering 90% of our population is within 100 miles of the border, making it so the USA would be shooting themselves in the foot
2 - It would quickly go from USA vs Canada/Britain to USA vs The World
3 - A large portion of the US military is Canadian

The British wouldn't toss their lives away for Canada. C'mon be realistic.

Inb4 treaties, treaties are only as good as the nations signing them, and let's face it, Britain really is the ********* ally to ever ally in the history of alliances.

It isn't a day in the UN if the English isn't trying to backstab you for personal gain.

You really want to trust the safety of your country on ENGLAND? And no, it wouldn't become a US vs the world scenario because the US runs the Seas with it's glorious Navy made of freedom and ****. There is no plausible way for the English (or anybody excepting the Russians to land near the Americas. Also the close proximity of Canada in concentrations would just make it easier for us to keep you guys in check, given that it means there's less ground to cover.

why bring modern day warfare into the equation? i like how old wars could be won through grit and determination, whereas nowadays its whoever spent the most trillions of taxpayer money that wins. if war was then what it is now, this wouldnt even be a conversation, considering that at that time britain was even more powerful in comparison to to other countries than the states is now, meaning the revolution would have just been another quelled rebellion. just be glad that at some point down the line, it was the americans who scoffed at how fat, greedy, and corrupt other countries were instead of vice versa.

nah, im just saying leave the past past and the present present. the states could probably defeat any one (possibly two) army in symmetrical warfare, but for the difficulty of fighting a transcontinental war in the 1800s? give people their props.